Special Meeting of Minooka 201 School Board

The Minooka CCSD 201 school board will be holding a special meeting on Wednesday, November 26, 2014.  The meeting agenda is available here.  The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka.  As always, members of the public are welcome to attend.

Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting

The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is Wednesday, November 19, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m. Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.

Last Tuesday (November 11th), I requested that three items be put on the agenda for this meeting:

First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4.  You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "g."  This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval).  For background information regarding why I believe this policy will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.

Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom.  You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "h."  This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval).  I believe this policy will benefit all of our students.  This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.

Third, a motion to reprimand the Superintendent for insubordination and unprofessional conduct and to call for the Superintendent to make a public apology to the teachers, the school board, and Mrs. Kristan Crouch (a board member).  This motion will be discussed in executive session (see item "H" on the Regular Meeting Agenda) and motioned under action item "I" on the Regular Meeting Agenda ("Action as a result of Executive Session").  As a result, the board will not consider this item until the very end of the regular Board Meeting.  For background information regarding why I believe this motion is necessary, see my previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.

A Little Background May Be In Order

My previous post may have raised more questions than it answered.  Perhaps some background is in order to answer some of those questions.  (I hope that this background will answer some of the questions raised by Mr. Folsom in his rather eloquent comment to my previous post).

My recent FOIA request did not turn up any emails in which the superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, directly addressed to Mrs. Kristan Crouch or any other current member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board any concerns that he might have had with the proposed parent survey.  (By the way, I hope you have all taken the time to read the survey and have the same reaction that others have had: "What is the issue with this survey?  I don't see it.")  As I recall, Mr. Gegenheimer did not express any concerns regarding the proposed parent survey at the two special board meetings where we discussed the Strategic Plan and the Parent Survey (September 17th and October 15th) other than the following: (1) he was concerned that, by making the survey anonymous, we would not get reliable feedback (such concern was largely dismissed by those who felt, as I did, that an anonymous survey would be the only way to get honest feedback from the parents), and (2) he was concerned that we needed to have the survey ready to hand out at parent-teacher conferences since that would ensure the largest number of parent responses.

However, we now know from the emails, that Mr. Gegenheimer did share some concerns about the survey with a former member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, Mr. Don McKinney.  For me, the fact that Mr. Gegenheimer would not disclose his concerns regarding the proposed parent survey to the current members of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board while at the same time seeking the input of former member Don McKinney is particularly troublesome for the following reason.  Mr. McKinney resigned in March 2014 under the cloud of a facebook post in which he sought to disparage the young female volleyball players in our district by calling them by a slang term for female homosexuals.  Mr. McKinney, who is the superintendent at Nettle Creek school district in Morris, Illinois, was reprimanded by his own district and issued an apology to Nettle Creek parents for the facebook post (see here and here).  Why would Mr. Gegenheimer choose to ask this particular person for his opinion about the work of the current board?

Mr. McKinney, to my knowledge, has never apologized to Minooka parents or Minooka volleyball players.  Perhaps that was because Mr. Gegenheimer went to great lengths to ensure that Minooka parents did not speak out regarding the facebook post at our board meetings.  Mr. Gegenheimer even went so far as having Barb Erickson, one of the school district's attorneys (whose name you may recall seeing on one of the emails from the previous post), attend the public comment period at the very next school board meeting.  I wonder what exactly her role was going to be since parents and community members do not lose their right to free speech at school board meetings (in fact, it is specifically protected at such a public forum).  She left right after the public comment period.  She did not say a word, but I'm sure that she had an intimidating effect on any parent who may have thought about speaking up about Mr. McKinney's abhorrent behavior and feared that doing so would get them into legal trouble.

In his comment to my previous post, Mr. Folsom also wondered whether Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct with regard to the parent survey was typical or exceptional.  Unfortunately, based on my experience, this type of behavior is par for the course.  Mr. Gegenheimer’s unprofessional conduct has been going on for years—at least since I was elected to the Board in April 2009.  I previously chose not to blog about his conduct or blog about the conduct of some of my fellow board members who have never spoken up to stop Mr. Gegenheimer's behavior and by continuing to support him have, in effect, encouraged it.  As mentioned in a previous post, it was due to similar unprofessional behavior that I advocated to my fellow board members in April 2012 that Mr. Gegenheimer's contract should not be renewed.  Not only did the board vote 5 to 2 to renew the contract, but they gave Mr. Gegenheimer what can only be considered a "sweetheart deal" at the taxpayers' expense (see here and here).  Of the five members who voted to renew Mr. Gegenheimer's contract, only Mr. Jim Satorius, Mr. Al Skwarczynski, and Mr. Kevin Hannon are members of the current school board.

So, why have I not previously spoken out about Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct or the complicity of some board members in enabling his conduct?  In the past, I thought that I could get policies passed that would benefit the students and the teachers if I used diplomacy, tact and negotiation.  I thought that I could use reasoning to convince the other board members when something was in the best interests of the district.

Recently, it seemed that my patience was starting to bear fruit.  In February 2014, the board brought in Mr. Jeff Cohn, a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to conduct some board self-evaluation sessions.  After the first session in February, the board brought Mr. Cohn back again in June for another board self-evaluation session.  As a result of these meetings, the board decided to come up with a strategic plan for the district, something that has not been done as long as I have been on the board.  Special meetings were held on September 17th and October 15th to work on drafting the Strategic Plan.  I was very encouraged that the board was working together as a team to form a Strategic Plan and get parents, teachers and the community involved in having a collaborative relationship with the school board in order to try to improve the educational experience for our children.  The board was finally taking baby steps to do its job after years of abdicating its authority to Mr. Gegenheimer.

The board spent taxpayer money and expended much time and effort in bringing in Mr. Cohn, in creating the Strategic Plan, in discussing the importance of a parent and teacher survey, and in creating the parent survey.  (As an aside, the administration had already "jumped the gun" on the teacher survey by sending it out without authorization or input from the school board.  Mr. Gegenheimer didn't seem concerned about the "validity and reliability" of this survey.  In fact, this survey was apparently designed for an inner-city high school, and there are many questions on this survey that have little relevance to Minooka teachers (see, for example, questions 11, 19, and 20)).  So, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent conscious decision to undermine and ridicule the board, pit the teachers against the board, and blame and attack a board member (Mrs. Kristan Crouch), effectively destroyed all of the board’s efforts.  Precious time and taxpayer money went completely to waste through the orchestrated and seemingly malicious efforts of Mr. Gegenheimer.

So, the question remains, why did I choose this episode to lay bare the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201?  It is blatantly clear to me now that I can no longer remain silent about Mr. Gegenheimer's actions and conduct.  I can handle the personal attacks against myself that have been going on for years.  I have a very thick skin, and very few things short of actual combat rattle me.  I, however, will not countenance such blatant disrespect and sabotage against the school district and the school board, much less such personal attacks against one of my fellow board members.  My conscience and my ethical duty to the students, teachers, parents, taxpayers and my fellow board members of District 201 simply do not allow it.

Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" --Sir Walter Scott, Marmion

Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey).  What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).

For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable."  However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."  Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is.  It would be laughable if it was funny."

A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:

"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one?  thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)

"Kristin [sic] did.  It is pitiful.  It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)

"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)

"None at all!  It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)


Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated.  Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response."  In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!"  The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey."  The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted.  Thanks!"  Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.

On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner.  Please look it over and let me know your thoughts.  Please call me today, if possible.  Thanks!"  Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias.  On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data.  This think [sic] is ridiculous."

At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails.  As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident.  For me, these emails just further that impression.  You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.

Ultimate Responsibility for the Spectacle

Many who attended the most recent meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 board of education on October 22 were witness to a spectacle.  The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board members, teachers and the superintendent.  On the surface, the arguments were about a proposed parent survey and the teachers being extremely concerned that parent comments on these surveys would be used to adversely affect their employment.  Apparently, the teachers were told that the survey could endanger their jobs.  This was never the case nor do I believe it was the intent of the school board (see my previous post for background information regarding the parent survey).  The deeper argument, however, was not about a parent survey but was really about whether the board should assert its legal responsibility and authority to direct the management of the school district.

In small part, the spectacle was caused by a superintendent (Mr. Gegenheimer) who apparently chose to blindside the board of education and set them up for a fall rather than come to them with his concerns regarding the survey (an interesting action from someone who constantly reminds the board about the chain of command and being given the professional courtesy of not being surprised by an issue).  As I discussed in my previous post, the parent survey was discussed and drafted through a collaborative effort of six members of the board of education (Mr. Hannon was absent) along with Dr. Palaniuk and Mr. Gegenheimer at a special meeting on October 15.  The discussion of the survey took about an hour and a half of a two hour meeting.  At the end of the meeting, there was a general agreement that the survey was ready, barring any last minute changes, to be approved at the upcoming regular board meeting.

In the time between the special meeting on October 15 and the regular board meeting on October 22, Mr. Gegenheimer apparently had time to consult with nameless "college professors" and the school district's attorneys, all of whom supposedly had reservations about the survey.  Yet, Mr. Gegenheimer did not share this information with the board until the spectacle on October 22 had begun.  Instead, he apparently went to the teachers' union representatives on October 20 and cast the survey in a negative light (a role which he replayed at the regular meeting).  Additionally, whether on their own initiative or at the direction of the superintendent, building principals reportedly took the survey to teachers in their respective buildings.  And, apparently, when Mr. Gegenheimer learned that union representatives and teachers took issue with the survey and were planning on coming to the regular board meeting in protest, he failed to mention anything to the board of education until the regular meeting had begun.

I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer had a responsibility as the board's administrator to come to the board with his concerns rather than take those concerns to the teachers and potentially misrepresent the board's intent to the teachers.  I believe his conduct both prior to and at the regular meeting on October 22 was insubordinate and has significantly damaged the board's, or at least my own, ability to trust Mr. Gegenheimer to administer and implement the mandates and directives of the board, something that a superintendent is legally required to do.

The ultimate responsibility for the spectacle, however, rests squarely on the shoulders of the board of education.  After all, the board of education hires and evaluates the superintendent.  If we choose to continue to employ a superintendent who acts in what I believe to be an unprofessional manner and apparently is threatened by a board of education that is taking baby steps to assert its legitimate authority after years of abdication of that authority, then we as a board should not be surprised by what results from that choice.  You see, when a board of education abdicates its role and authority, the superintendent steps in to fill the void and does not only his or her job but also the job of the board of education.  Many superintendents welcome this.  After all, it increases their power.  But, in the process it harms the district (and, as a result, the students).  School districts function much more effectively when the board of education and the superintendent each do their own job.  In addition, the voters who elect the board members to the board of education probably do so thinking that the board members will take an active role in directing and overseeing the management of the district.

I was surprised by some aspects of the spectacle but not by the events leading up to the spectacle.  For years, I have been convinced that Mr. Gegenheimer is one of the most unprofessional people I have met and that many of his actions are detrimental to the best interests of our school district.

Mr. Gegenheimer has a track record of treating parents, community members, staff and board members in a similar unprofessional manner.  Time and time again, those who have the "audacity" to express disagreement or criticism of him or his administration are met with personal attacks, attempts at intimidation and retaliation.  Teachers fear for their jobs.  Parents and community members stop coming to board meetings.  The entire district suffers.  Unfortunately, there are all too many people in our community who know what I am talking about.  I have been witness to a number of these instances (some of which have been directed at me personally), and I have been told about many more.  It was due to behavior such as this that I voted in April 2012 (see here) against renewing Mr. Gegenheimer's contract.

The day-to-day operations of our school district should be managed by someone who knows how to lead in a professional manner, someone who treats everyone with respect whether they agree or disagree with him or her.  Everyone should feel welcome at our board meetings and should feel comfortable voicing their opinions in public without fear of maltreatment or retaliation.  Mr. Gegenheimer has proven to me that he is not that person.  Unfortunately this view is not shared by some of my fellow board members.  One wonders what exactly it will take to convince them.

My Apologies to Mrs. Crouch

Those of you who were witness to the spectacle that took place at the recent Minooka CCSD 201 board of education meeting on October 22 should step back and calmly consider what happened.  The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board members, teachers and the superintendent regarding a proposed parent survey.  But, the spectacle also consisted of a superintendent, Mr. Gegenheimer, throwing one member of the board of education, Mrs. Kristan Crouch, "under the bus" with some members of the board of education not objecting.  In fact, at one point, Mr. Gegenheimer asserted that Mrs. Crouch was "the problem."  An assertion that Mrs. Crouch was understandably shocked to witness (as was I), and responded to by telling Mr. Gegenheimer he was being "unprofessional" (which he was).  Actually, she was being nice.  In my book, "unprofessional" is a somewhat tame adjective to describe his actions.

First a little background may be in order. As part of a decision to implement a Strategic Plan, the board of education decided to conduct an anonymous survey of parents to obtain input into how parents felt that District policies could be improved in order to improve the educational experience for their children.  The board also decided to conduct an anonymous survey of its teachers/staff in order to determine teacher/staff morale and receive input on how District policies could be improved in order to improve working conditions for them. During two open meetings specifically held to discuss the Strategic Plan, there was much discussion on how to implement these two surveys, how to obtain the highest level of feedback from both parents and teachers/staff, and the types of questions that would be asked on these surveys.

At the second such meeting on October 15, the majority of the discussion was focused on the parent survey. It was hoped that this survey could be finalized and distributed to parents at the upcoming Parent-Teacher conferences since a large majority of parents attend one or more Parent-Teacher conferences. The teachers were going to be asked to hand out the surveys at the end of the conference, and parents would fill them out and place them in a receptacle in order to maintain anonymity. There were to be no markings on the surveys that would identify classrooms or teachers. The only identifier was to be that different colors of paper were to be used at each building so that results could be looked at by building.  At no time were teachers going to be asked to discuss or spend time on the parent surveys during their conferences.

Now, back to the events of the board of education meeting on October 22. There was some talk of who drafted the parent survey.  This talk was pointless and only served the purpose of attempting to castigate Mrs. Crouch.  Someone had to do a first draft of the survey.  Unfortunately for Mrs. Crouch, she was assigned the job of writing the first draft of the parent survey (which made sense to me since she is a parent with children currently attending Minooka 201 schools).  As an aside, Mrs. Allen was assigned the task of writing the first draft of the teacher survey (which also made sense to me since she was a teacher for 27 years).  Mrs. Allen, you better hold off on that survey, lest you become the next target.

Here is where the apology comes in (or part of it at least).  I was the one who suggested that Mrs. Crouch write the first draft of the parent survey.  So, Mrs. Crouch, I apologize for suggesting that you write the first draft of the survey.  In my defense, my intention in doing so was to make sure that our newest board member had a chance to contribute.

So, let's go back to the subject of who wrote the first draft of the survey.  Who cares?  It is not relevant, unless you are trying to throw someone "under the bus."  It takes forever to draft anything by committee, so it made sense to have one person take the first crack at it and present it for comments and editing.  Once Mrs. Crouch presented it to those of us at the special meeting, including five other members of the board (Mr. Hannon was absent) and Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk, it became our survey.  Every one of us at that meeting had something to say about the survey.  We spent an hour and a half editing the survey, changing the wording, deleting some questions, adding some questions.  By the end of the meeting, it was no longer a product written by one person, but a product of the attendees of that meeting.  At the end of the meeting, there was general agreement that the parent survey was ready, barring last minute comments, to be approved at the next regular meeting of the board of education.  Mrs. Crouch was charged with taking the comments and edits that we had all agreed upon, revising the survey and sending it to Mr. Gegenheimer.  Mrs. Crouch made the changes and emailed the revised survey ("our survey") to Mr. Gegenheimer on October 17.  Mr. Gegenheimer forwarded the survey by email to the rest of the board and Dr. Palaniuk without any comment other than the following: "Dear Board, Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."

Because, in my view, the proposed parent survey was a product of that meeting and every board member present as well as Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk contributed and had a chance to raise objections to any particular question or the survey as a whole, it was "our survey."  And so, for me, Mr. Gegenheimer's attempt to castigate Mrs. Crouch and throw her "under the bus" was malicious and cowardly.  In addition, the failure of many of my fellow board members to defend Mrs. Crouch and chastise Mr. Gegenheimer for his actions is also at best an act of cowardice and at worst an act of malice (as if she had it coming).  Mrs. Allen, to her great credit, in response to Mr. Gegenheimer's charge that Mrs. Crouch wrote the survey, stated that "we also all talked about it and agreed upon it."

Here is where the remainder of the apology comes in.  I attempted to explain to those present that the proposed parent survey was not the work of some "lone" board member, but rather a product of collaboration of the board, Mr. Gegenheimer, and Dr. Palaniuk.  (That we failed to include the teachers in this collaboration was a collective failure not a failure of one individual).  What I failed to do, however, was to explain to the teachers present that contrary to what was presented to them both before the meeting and at the meeting, Mrs. Crouch was never "out to get them."  Truth be told, Mrs. Crouch is one of the most ardent supporters of our classroom teachers.  So, it would be a tragedy if the teachers or anyone present came away from that spectacle with the wrong impression.  Again, I apologize, this time for a sin of omission rather than one of commission.

In the end, the spectacle was a display of cowardice and, potentially, malice.  I hope we are teaching our children better than this.

[Edited to provide background information.]

Mutual Respect

There are two main groups of people that make up the management hierarchy of a school district in Illinois.  The board of education and the administration (superintendent and his or her team of principals and other administrators).  Under Illinois law (see here for certain relevant provisions of the Illinois School Code), the school board is charged with the overall administration of the district but really has four main functions: approving the budget and the tax levy (with recommendations and input from the superintendent), approving the textbooks and courses of study (again with recommendations and input from the superintendent), hiring and evaluating the superintendent, and directing the overall management of the district through policy and strategic plans.  The superintendent (along with the rest of the administration) is charged with the day-to-day management of the district in accordance with board policy and directives.

In order for this system to work, each group needs to respect the legitimate obligations and authority of the other group.  Obviously, I am a board member and so come at this with the perspective of a board member.  I respect the administrators' authority to do their job as far as the day-to-day management of the district, but in return I expect that the administrators respect the board of education's authority to do its job (especially regarding what I believe are the four main functions of a board of education).  In return, I also expect the administrators to respect each individual board member's right as an elected official to advocate for his or her positions and to either agree or disagree with other board members or administrators.

In addition, each board member should respect the right of other board members, as fellow elected officials, to agree or disagree with their fellow board members and/or administrators without being subjected to harassing, intimidating or otherwise disrespectful treatment.  Whether board members agree with one another's position or not, board members should always stand up for their fellow board member's right to express an opinion without being subjected to disrespect by either a fellow board member or an administrator.  In short, in order for a board member to earn their right to advocate for their position, they should defend the right of other board members to advocate for their position regardless of whether they ultimately agree or disagree with one another.  (The oath that all board members take actually addresses this when it states, in part: "I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees.")